Graham Linehan Criminal Damage Conviction Appeal – Day 2

Proceedings will start at 9.45am as Her Honour Mrs Justice Tibbles gives her reasons for refusing yesterday’s Bad Character Application (BCA), which Linehan’s team made against the Complainant, Sophia Brooks.

Whilst a lot of fascinating evidence came out in court about Brooks infiltrating and lying to women’s support networks, taking a speaker to a Let Women Speak event and repeatedly playing a recording of someone saying “If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face”…

… the judge has decided only to allow the evidence which the CPS agreed was relevant. This will affect this morning’s proceedings during which Linehan’s barrister, Sarah Vine KC cross-examine Brooks (Brooks gave his evidence in chief yesterday)

Then there should be one more Crown witness and the afternoon will be given over to Linehan’s witnesses. It’s still not clear if @Graham Linehan himself is giving evidence. If you would like to read a write-up of yesterday’s evidence, it’s here: https://genderblog.net/glinner-rides-again/…

genderblog.net/glinner-rides-…

Glinner Rides Again

Thanks to everyone who donated yesterday. It made my reporting today viable. If you haven’t already and find what I am doing useful, please consider a one off donation to keep my work in this area going. The link is here: https://genderblog.net/donate/

genderblog.net/donate/

Donate

Some hopefully helpful abbreviations: J – Judge SV – Sarah Vine KC, Glinner’s counsel JW – Julia Faure Walker – CPS counsel SB – Sophia Brooks – also C, Complainant GL – Graham Linehan – also D, Defendant P – Prosecution (so, CPS)

D – Defence (I know! Same as D for Defendant – you’ll have to work it out from context) LGBA – Lesbian Gay Bisexual Alliance BoI – Battle of Ideas CH – Church House FW – Freda Wallace I’ll try to remember to write them out in the text first time they come up.

A final and important note. NOTHING I WRITE IS A DIRECT QUOTE UNLESS IT IS IN “DIRECT QUOTES” – my tweets are summaries and characterisations of what is being said. Thankfully there was a lot of slow, measured speech yesterday and I got quite a few direct quotes down, but…

… obviously there’s no guarantee of that today. Subscribers will be alerted to the existence of my end of day court report first – I will wait until it’s dropped into your inboxes before pushing it on social media. It’s a small perk, but I am grateful to everyone who has been kind enough to help

fund free-at-the-point-of-consumption public interest journalism, which hopefully also brings you a nice, warm feeling. Right then, the Reasons For Dismissing the BCA cometh…. [Court is sitting]

Judge is reading from her ruling v quickly. No dispute D took phone from C’s hand. D on 5 Deb 2026 made a BCA to adduce evidence in relation to complainant. P responded with admission that some matters were admissible, others weren’t and explained why.

A subsequent doc served by D on 29 April. Is info in BCA relevant, admissible and admissible under gateways D seeks to rely on. We heard submissions from both counsel and read BCA and a supplemental doc prepared by the defence. We now turn to the points which remain in dispute:

[she is reading lots of par numbers out] – I am not going read out the details of what is contained in those parts of the BCA. The central issue is C’s credibility and whether D did what was alleged and whether there was justification for what he did.

We don’t see how the [xxx] contested elements of the BCA are admissible or relevant. Re [x] these are relevant but contested and could give rise to satellite litigation.

P has already conceded that C believes having D would be a “scalp”…. and on 13 Oct 2024 the C accepted in an audio recording in relation to being deceitful in certain circs set out in that audio recording. Those go to C’s cred.

As a matter of law I am quite satisfied that [xxxx] element of the BCA does not add anything and [xxx] of the BCA does not have substantial probitive value.

For those reasons, save as to what is agreed by P, the D app is dismissed. [sorry – the judge was reading the par numbers of the BCA lightning fast. I think I will try to get a copy of the judgment and publish it alongside the BCA when I can]

[court has risen – proceedings to due to start again imminently]

[Back sitting again – SB is back in the dock. Has been answering a few prelim questions about the BoI conf on 19 Oct 2024.] [said he wanted to go because FW wanted to go]

SV did you go to more than one event SB I think I went to one and walked out half way SV remember what it was about? SB I don’t remember SV who chose either of the sessions SB no because it wasn’t “substantive to remember”

SV why go then? SB “I don’t remember” SV the title of the session was “Gender Wars” – you’re a trans activist – was that maybe why you were interested SB is this the earlier session – you’re making me very confused SV I’m talking about the GW session

SV you don’t remember whether it was you or FW who decided to attend that session SB yes SV and you don’t know what the other session was about SB yes SV was that because your purpose was not to listen to views other than your own, but “to catalogue other people who were there”

SB no SV did you take any photos of any one else who was there SB no SV so you only took photos at GW? SB yes SV so that was your objective for being at BoI SB no SV was it one of the reasons SB yes

SV another reason was for taking photos of Church House SB yes for an article and stock images SV so people at the GW panel and interior images SB yes SV so when you get the BoI programme you get it digitally in advance and a paper copy SB yes SV did you have a paper copy SB yes

SV and FW didn’t discuss what you should do there SB i we did I can’t remember SV and you were there… SB “primarily for photography” SV and you took photos of the inside of CH SB for innocent purposes

SV and sought to take photos of people in the GW panel SB yes SV I am going to suggest that among your objectives that day was to take such oppos you could to provoke and needle people who you knew disagreed with you on the sex/gender debate SB no

SV so any behaviour of your which might be construed as needling was spontaneous SB “I didn’t provoke anyone, I was entirely respectful until Kate Harris came up to me and started blocking my camera… I wasn’t blocking her view – she came from behind me.” SV so KH got…

… in between you and the speakers. SB yes SV anyone else taking photos SB one person not hired by the venue and one hired by the venue SV other people taking photos SB yes SV so not a big deal SB yes SV you walked away from the panel to take photos of them

SB yes, so as not to inconvenience the people behind me SV what about the people behind you when you went into the aisle [SB claims to be getting confused by the line of q] SB sorry I don’t understand your point [J intervenes] [we are watching the video of the incident]

[Kate Harris and another are confronting SB] SV you said to the woman in the grey shirt “Fuck off” SB “Don’t touch me” SV “Fuck off don’t touch me” SB yes [SB asks for security] SV why did you want security

SB “because she was touching me and I didn’t think it was appropriate” SV why not SB “I just don’t like physical contact” SV can you not see they were trying to calm you SB “if they were trying to they did a poor job”

[we are now onto a bit of footage where SB pushes a hand away saying you touched me – calls what he did “instinctual… my hand was already at their level”]

[vid has been freeze framed to show SB’s relation to the panel] SV wouldn’t it have been easier to walk to the back of where you were sitting SB I wanted different angles [the video is running we see SB moving his phone to get footage of the people trying to block his phone]

SB the camera I was using has a sensor in the view of it doesn’t actually take a picture so I didn’t manage to take a photo of KH SV when did you find this out? SB don’t know SV so why take more photos if you didn’t know you had failed to get one SB I don’t know

SV you were taking photos of anyone taking photos of you or anyone who came up to you SB yes SV why SB “they’d come up to take pictures of me or willingingly come in front of me”

SV before the BoI how much did you know about GL SB I would not be able to remember SV have you done much research into him SB I wouldn’t remember SV you knew he was divorced

SB yes it’s a commonly known fact SV you knew he was being sued SB yes by Alan Driscoll, the Holby City actor or whatever his name is I think he was Alan SV you knew about him from the gender debate SB yes SV and as far as your participation in that debate is concerned

… what where you doing. SB “mostly photography… earlier on I’d infiltrated a group.” SV how long had you infiltrated that group for SB a few months

SV what was your purpose for infiltrating that group SB to obtain information for online bloggers SV who SB anyone who was pro-tran – FW, some chap in Australia SV what info would you get from infiltrating that group J not sure this is relevant

SV after group infiltration what else did you do – videography SB yes SV filming events on both sides – TRA events, GC events SB I would say yes

SV and did you ID people that you wanted to get more information SB no it would just be the event in general SV and your online activity JW these are v open questions [SB asked to step outside – he walks out smirking]

[today he is wearing blue jeans with a grey long-sleeved top, round glasses. He has brown hair, worn long and loose. The public gallery is slightly fuller today. Judge has stopped calling the complainant C and is now calling him “her”]

[J and JFW are not thrilled with SV’s line of q – J has asked SV to move on. SB and someone are having a loud debate outside court, usher has gone to quieten them down and get SB]

[we continue] SV turning to your online activity. Is it correct that you engaged online with people you consider to be your oppos in the sex/gender debate (SGD) SB yes SV and if one of your oppos said they were cataloguing everything they do would you find that upsetting…

… “or creepy, maybe?” SB I feel as though this is a leading question, but yes.” [SV takes court to a video to a twitterspace – a live convo between participants who can join live] SV this one is being hosted by FW SB I would assume so yes SV we see to the right 2.5 profile…

… photos and we can see when you are speaking [SB says something along the lines of who area too scared to listen to it live. We know who you are, and you we’re cataloguing everything that you do. I never lose. and you will pay… I’ve been deceitful enough so they…

… will never truly find out who I am] SV so you sending a message to TERFs who are too scared to listen to it live SB yes SV and when you said “we know who you are” – who’s we? SB I didn’t mean it seriously

SV and was we the royal we or you and your associates SB royal we SV and cataloguing everything that they do – something you know creeps them out SB yes SV and don’t you worry your pretty little head? Patronising and belittling SB yes

SV you will pay SB said in jest SV Explain the joke SB “I couldn’t put it into words” SV I always win SB KJK says that SV and you say it’s not true of her, but it is true of you SB yes, but I don’t always

SV what do you win at SB I don’t know – an argument SV “it’s important for you to discredit individual GC campaigners, isn’t it?” SB yes SV and one of the ways you seek to do that is through the courts SB not nec through the courts SV but sometimes SB yes if they’ve committed

… a crim offence SV you say a crim offence SB to who SV the police presumably. GL is v high profile SB yes SV KJK v high profile SB yes, well, no. High profile, not v high profile.

SV getting the scalp of GL would be rewarding wouldn’t it SB are you suggesting I would get some soc med kudos SV I’m asking if there would be cultural kudos within your community if you got GL SB it might look like that but actually no SV in the trial in September…

… that getting GL would be a scalp SB did I say that SV yes SB then I must have SV are you changing your mind SB I certainly didn’t get a medal SV you saw Maria MacLachlan outside the BoI

J is this relevant SV my lady bear with SV you saw MM and recognised her SB yes – we had interacted online [SV plays the initial part of the confrontation]

SB Record, record, record, just record MM So how is it a hate-fest? What’s your reasoning? SB It is MM No, you can’t just say “it is”, what is it? SB No, no, no, you keep on saying that sex is immutable and that’s a fact so I’m going to refuse to explain how it’s a hate-fest.

MM So you don’t know. You don’t know what you’re talking about SB You don’t know what you’re talking about. [To FW, laughing] Get the angle, get the angle [gesturing] from behind. MM [To FW] what’s your name? FW [pause] Goddess MM Oh, ok. No. No.

SV you know that MM was assaulted by a kickboxer SB yes SV and here in this video you accused her of instigating her assault SB yes SV what did you mean by that SB coming up and videoing

SV so you think that coming up and videoing someone is justification for assault do you? SB not really

[[we play more of the video]]

SV you’re smiling as you’re watching this, are you enjoying it? SB no

SV you were smiling at the time SB I smile whilst I’m under pressure SV why are you under pressure SB I can’t explain how to you

[[we see more of the vid]]

SV so in this vid you accuse MM of provoking the assault on her

SB that’s out of context – I said I was building up to something – I said she lied about my assault SV put your assault aside – you are saying that MM deserved her assault because she was videoing someone

SB no SV why did you ask her if she was trembling SB if she was angry or in fear, she should have left SV you didn’t think you were being intimidating – there were two of you, you were bigger than her SB there was a building full of people who all agreed with her…

SV answer the q – did you think you were being intimidating SB no SV were you trying to belittle her SB no SV I was suggesting if she was scared or angry she should leave SB from the two men filming and circling her

SB two men, yes

[[we see the end of the vid]]

SV all of that was designed to needle her wasn’t it SB no

[we’re going to a doc in a bundle – there is some debate about whether this has been agreed to be admissible]

SV this is post of you which you took of MM asking her if she was going to punch you – and actually she’s holding a phone in her hand SB yes I accept I did that SV you cropped the photo SB I didn’t crop the phot SV and you tell her to go away and lie about her assault SB yes

SV do you believe she lied about her assault SB as much as she believes I lied about my assault SV you spent much of your time outside the BoI approaching people and you talked to them about GL SB yes

SV I knew he was there – he made his presence known when he calls me a sissy porn-watching scumbag SB and when you continued to approach him, did you think that he was open to reason

SB “to be honest I think he’s mentally ill… not at the time – but as time has progressed… I think he’s insane” SV did you think he was going to be open to reason when you approached him a second time – given he had been attending what you call a hate-fest filled with bigots

SB people mellow out SV did you not see that he did not want you near him SB he didn’t say go away he just shouted obscenities SV he said go away groomer

SB “I didn’t take that seriously, it’s followed by an insult which isn’t even true” SV so you thought by saying groomer he wanted to hang around with you SB no SV so he wanted you to go away

SB yes SV so why pursue him. SB I wanted to maybe shame him into giving an apology. SV explain how that is likely SB I can’t explain it in words SV you evade questions you don’t wish to answer SB no SV and you lie with the greatest of ease SB no

SV then you goad him about his divorce SB I was giving him the truth when all he tells is lies SV you enjoyed that didn’t you SB yes SV why. SB I don’t think he knows he’s divorced. He still calls his ex-wife his wife. SV are you saying he didn’t know he was divorced

SB no SV so it wasn’t news to you or to him

[[agrees]]

SV you wanted to upset him in the hope her would react SB I want to shame him not upset him, and I didn’t want a reaction I wanted an apology SV you’d spent the day pushing your camera into the faces of people who espouse

… GC views. SB factually yes SV you created a disturbance which led you being ejected SB no Kate Harris caused the ruckus – SV she “instigated” it maybe? SB no SV you were the one saying fuck off fuck off don’t touch me call security not her

SB do you want me to take you through the whole thing again SV changing subject a moment – you told Robbie Travers you had a picture of GL’s ex-wife’s house SB no SV and you said you’d planted a speaker under GL’s car SB no SV when you approached GL and he took and tossed…

… your phone SB threw it, with force SV where you stood, you’d moved round a group of people towards him SB Mr L had a clear path on his right SV are you sure about that SB yes I am sure

SV when you made your complaint to the police SB yes SV you provided them with Mr L’s personal details – his address and his mobile phone number SB yes SV you did not want to tell the police how you knew his home address SB I accept that SV why was that SB would you like to know

… how I found that out? SV why not want to tell them SB I don’t know SV was there anything underhand about how you got it SB no SV how did you get it SB it was given to me anonymously SV how via twitter DM

[sorry] SV how SB via twitter DM SV how did you know it was correct SB I didn’t

SV so someone anonymous, but who you were connected with on twitter SB no – someone acutely aware of the argument SV they just contacted you and said here’s GL’s number SB yes SV is that true SB yes SV is it, though? SB yes

SV you describe the LGBA as purporting to protect LGB rights but you think they reduce GBT rights SB yes SV is your argument with them – they approach sex orientation purely on the basis of sex rather than gender ID SB say that again SV is your argument with LGBA that they…

… approach etc SB no SV so your argument with them is what SB well, their membership is only 7% LGB and they’ve admitted that in court SV finally in the BoI session you saw – how many speakers did you listen to

SB one or two SV you said the panel was supportive of conversion therapy – but in fact it was only one person addressing that subject SB at length SV the reality is Ms B that you were there at the BoI to cause disruption, SB no

SV to provoke an needle GC people into an adverse reaction in the hope you could complain they were acting unreasonably or criminally and in GL you find a perfect target, someone you knew would react intemperately to your approaches

SB what are you asking – is her the perfect victim. I knew he has abusive SV you identified him as v reactive SB I ID’d him as someone who threw insults

SV and that isn’t your understanding of the word reactive SV one last thing – the state of your phone, before that date – the little dents – were already there SB no

SV and is that the phone you took with you that day SB yes

[[re-examination starts]]

JW your meeting with MM came after being ejected from BoI and before the confrontation

SB yes JW she called you Tarquin SB yes and a prick, multiple times JW had you used that name before SB I subsequently adopted it

JW do you remember seeing MM at the BoI inside Church House SB no JW was she ever in your eyeline at all SB no JW no further questions…

[one more from SV] SV when you spoke to the police in 2024 you told the you were being assisted by a police officer SB yes SV and that former police officer is Lynsey Watson SB yes

Male Mag – when GL took your phone did it have a cover on it SB yes but it came off when it hit the ground Mag which cover was it SB the one with the green cup

Mag where the phone landed, roughly what distance was that from you SB approx a meter Mag and from GL SB er, two meters Mag thank you.

[SB leaves dock and goes to sit at the back of the court] [Acting Detective Sargeant Thomas Wells is sworn in – he was the investigating officer in this case] JW – was the call from the LGBA about the release of insects at 4.19pm TW yes JW and there was CCTV showing it shortly

… before. TW correct JW and four people were detained and none were SB TW correct JW and SB was not on any CCTV TW corr JW and GL attended a voluntary iv on 5 Feb 2025 TW yes JW and he provided a prepared statement TW yes

[JW reads part of the statement] [GL says he was first approached by Tarquin at BoI – he had been removed by security staff – repeated

harassment of me – and other people by filming people he has no respect for peoples’ privacy or personal space – I have tried to ignore T as far as possible – I presume

he was frustrated by not getting a reaction – he then made a comment about my divorce – this is a very sensitive subject to me – I took his phone I suspect this

was precisely what he wanted I had had enough. it was a reflex response in the face of provocation] JW did GL then get questioned for 50 mins during which he gave no comment to every q TW yes JW no further q SV when were you first assigned to this case TW I believe…

… late Nov 2024 SV there were three CRIS reports generated by this J whats CRIS SV sure TW knows TW it’s an crime report log system no longer used SV I’ll call it the investigation log J is that fair TW yes

SV I’ll try to take you through them – first one created in response to SB 999 call on 19 Oct and that report was created on 20 Oct – first recorded as a robbery investigation. TW yes J who made the 999 call SV SB

SV then on 21 Oct a second crime report – categorised as a s4a public order act – the offence of threatening abusive words and behaviour with intent to cause alarm and distress.

TW is agreeing. CPS cannot follow this and wants to check its true SV its a recitation of the qs in the last trial J is that right officer TW I believe so J did that happen at your end or was another call made TW my understanding is that a second call was made

… which created another report and the crime management unit independently classified it J who made the second call TW believe it was SB J if you don’t know don’t say – so we don’t know SV and on 23 Oct we have a third investigation report…

J hang one when the 999 call was made was it categorised as an alleged crime – if you don’t know, don’t say TW I can tell you what typically happens J no I want to know what actually happened.

[he doesn’t know] SV and the third crime report was malicious communication likely to cause stress or anxiety… TW yes

[[takes him to a section of the log]]

SV the first section there roughly parallel with the bottom of the narrative “from michelle louise burrows as follows…”

SV [reads] on the 19 Oct the former comedy writer approached a young TG woman… linehan was extremely threatening… had he not been dragged away

there is no doubt he would have assaulted her… he has now found out where she is studyoing… he has a well documented murderous hatred of all transgender

people – this is aggravated stalking… this is not the first time – he’s received a caution from Norfolk police… I respectfully demand he is arrested”

SV did anyone contact MLB TW I didn’t – I don’t believe she was there. SV there is also a report on 22 Oct from Lynsay Watson – Linehan has attacked SB, he has a murderous hatred of TG people, I fear SB could be killed. Notes his “throwing” tweets and says this is an admission

of criminal damage. SV did anyone contact LW TW no JW what is the relevant of all this SV can I ask a question – it is corr that in all the investigation logs that LW’s ref on 22 Oct is the first time crim damage is mentioned

TW that may be the case. J so you’re saying you don’t know but that might be right SV Can we look at 24 October entry…

… its input by police staff “Roman” – who works in crime management system – they have recorded that SB has contacted pol – says “his is” a police cadet being advised by an officer – not a robbery – he has been advised criminal damage

… under £5000 not a common assault by beating. J who is saying what here TW not clear but it could be the staff member is advising SB of any offence

[we continue further into documents – this is the Action Plan part rather than the inquiry] SV at the bottom there is a narrative where PC Caves says she has screenshots of suspect’s posts I have sent an evidence upload link to her. Requested she upload asap. Asked SB for…

… statement. SB says she’s trying to get a civil injunction against the suspect. This was on 5 Nov 2024. A Tuesday. – this is relevant when we see the long narrative in the next page which begins “Sophia has sent me three documents”

SV [reading from report] have been able to review the screenshots etc etc. Then PC Kays writes – i have the following entry from SB confirming upload of tweets

and message saying “I’m unavailable on Thursday.. I’m having my mobile phone assessed for damage which Linehan may have cause” [SB has walked out of court]

SV message on lower half of p25 PC Caves again. Received a request from CRIB – Crime investigation report bureau Good afternoon Elle… managed to get in touch with SB – I won’t push you for an update – I’ll just mention on closing the protection from harassment…

act allows for unlimited fines. this is important as he can crowdfund away any fines. Now this would have an effect on him… L is placing so many TG in grave danger and he must be stopped or something will happen – this was from Lynsay Watson.

SV and you can confirm that the person who got GL arrested at H’row was Lynsay Watson TW I don’t know JW can we confirm that the Hrow incident was a completely separate investigation TW yes it was but I did have a conversation with the investigating officer in that case.

[court rises for 15 mins. Jumping tweet thread next tweet]

Part 3:

This is Tweet Thread Three of Day Two of Graham Linehan’s appeal against his conviction for criminal damage of a mobile phone at Southwark Crown Court. We are at lunch on something of a cliffhanger…

Part 3 continues in the box below: